Derivational Complexity: TRS pair #487103020

details

property	value
status	complete
benchmark	86052.xml
ran by	Akihisa Yamada
cpu timeout	1200 seconds
wallclock timeout	300 seconds
memory limit	137438953472 bytes
execution host	n145.star.cs.uiowa.edu
space	ICFP_2010

run statistics

property	value
solver	AProVE
configuration	rcdcRelativeAlsoLower
runtime (wallclock)	293.984 seconds
cpu usage	838.47
user time	830.738
system time	7.73214
max virtual memory	1.8901724E7
max residence set size	1.49169E7

stage attributes

key	value
starexec-result	WORST_CASE(?, O(n^1))

output

WORST_CASE(?, O(n^1))
proof of /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.xml
# AProVE Commit ID: 794c25de1cacf0d048858bcd21c9a779e1221865 marcel 20200619 unpublished dirty


The Derivational Complexity (full) of the given DCpxTrs could be proven to be BOUNDS(1, n^1).

(0) DCpxTrs
(1) DerivationalComplexityToRuntimeComplexityProof [BOTH BOUNDS(ID, ID), 0 ms]
(2) CpxRelTRS
(3) SInnermostTerminationProof [BOTH CONCRETE BOUNDS(ID, ID), 43 ms]
(4) CpxRelTRS
(5) RelTrsToTrsProof [UPPER BOUND(ID), 0 ms]
(6) CpxTRS
(7) CpxTrsMatchBoundsProof [FINISHED, 58 ms]
(8) BOUNDS(1, n^1)


----------------------------------------

(0)
Obligation:
The Derivational Complexity (full) of the given DCpxTrs could be proven to be BOUNDS(1, n^1).


The TRS R consists of the following rules:

   0(0(1(2(x1)))) -> 3(1(3(x1)))
   4(2(5(5(x1)))) -> 1(3(0(5(x1))))
   1(5(3(5(2(x1))))) -> 1(2(3(2(4(x1)))))
   2(2(0(2(0(4(x1)))))) -> 2(2(1(1(4(x1)))))
   3(4(0(2(2(0(x1)))))) -> 3(4(4(5(2(x1)))))
   0(3(0(1(2(1(0(x1))))))) -> 3(5(0(2(0(2(x1))))))
   1(2(3(1(2(0(2(x1))))))) -> 1(4(5(0(3(5(x1))))))
   5(4(1(4(5(1(5(x1))))))) -> 5(2(0(2(1(4(5(x1)))))))
   2(0(4(5(5(1(2(2(x1)))))))) -> 2(5(5(4(4(2(2(x1)))))))
   5(3(1(5(2(0(5(0(x1)))))))) -> 5(0(0(0(4(3(1(0(x1))))))))
   0(2(3(2(0(5(1(0(2(x1))))))))) -> 5(1(2(5(5(0(3(4(x1))))))))
   2(1(3(1(1(0(0(2(2(x1))))))))) -> 1(1(3(1(2(4(5(4(x1))))))))
   3(3(2(0(5(0(1(5(2(x1))))))))) -> 3(0(2(1(4(2(5(2(x1))))))))
   4(3(2(2(5(3(1(5(0(4(x1)))))))))) -> 4(4(3(0(2(0(4(4(0(3(0(x1)))))))))))
   2(4(3(3(2(4(1(1(2(0(0(x1))))))))))) -> 4(3(4(4(4(5(0(3(5(1(x1))))))))))
   0(0(0(2(3(5(5(2(4(3(2(0(x1)))))))))))) -> 2(5(1(0(3(0(5(0(2(3(2(0(x1))))))))))))
   1(4(1(3(3(4(5(1(0(1(2(0(x1)))))))))))) -> 1(3(1(0(5(3(2(4(0(2(1(x1)))))))))))
   0(1(5(1(1(4(3(0(0(0(2(1(2(x1))))))))))))) -> 5(5(1(1(4(0(0(4(5(5(0(3(x1))))))))))))
   5(4(2(2(4(5(0(4(3(1(2(5(4(x1))))))))))))) -> 5(3(5(5(1(5(0(0(2(1(1(3(4(x1)))))))))))))
   3(0(3(3(1(0(1(0(1(4(3(3(3(4(x1)))))))))))))) -> 3(5(4(0(3(2(4(0(1(4(0(5(4(x1)))))))))))))
   0(2(4(1(5(1(5(0(1(1(2(4(1(5(4(x1))))))))))))))) -> 0(3(1(5(3(4(0(2(5(5(4(5(1(4(4(x1)))))))))))))))
   3(0(2(3(3(4(1(1(4(2(1(1(1(5(4(x1))))))))))))))) -> 3(3(1(5(1(3(0(1(4(5(1(0(3(0(4(x1)))))))))))))))
   4(4(4(3(4(1(1(1(0(1(0(1(0(3(1(0(4(x1))))))))))))))))) -> 3(4(2(1(5(0(0(3(1(3(0(3(3(1(3(5(x1))))))))))))))))
   5(2(1(3(0(3(5(4(3(2(2(4(5(2(5(2(3(x1))))))))))))))))) -> 0(5(2(5(4(5(0(0(5(5(4(2(3(0(0(1(2(3(x1))))))))))))))))))
   3(0(4(4(5(5(5(5(2(4(4(1(0(0(2(3(2(4(x1)))))))))))))))))) -> 3(0(5(2(0(2(3(1(2(0(4(4(5(4(0(4(2(3(4(x1)))))))))))))))))))
   3(2(0(3(2(1(2(4(3(5(1(3(3(2(5(5(0(4(x1)))))))))))))))))) -> 4(2(5(2(4(3(4(2(0(2(2(4(1(0(2(1(0(4(x1))))))))))))))))))
   4(0(3(3(2(5(0(3(0(1(3(3(4(4(0(5(0(2(4(x1))))))))))))))))))) -> 4(0(1(1(2(3(5(5(2(4(2(3(1(5(5(2(5(x1)))))))))))))))))
   2(3(2(3(4(0(4(2(3(1(4(4(2(0(0(3(3(2(0(0(x1)))))))))))))))))))) -> 2(4(2(0(2(5(2(4(4(2(5(4(3(1(4(1(5(1(x1))))))))))))))))))
   0(4(1(5(0(2(3(3(0(3(0(5(2(0(4(3(4(2(1(2(2(x1))))))))))))))))))))) -> 5(4(3(1(4(5(0(5(5(2(3(1(0(4(0(4(4(2(3(0(x1))))))))))))))))))))
   1(5(5(3(2(4(0(4(1(5(5(0(4(2(4(3(4(2(2(1(4(x1))))))))))))))))))))) -> 1(2(2(1(4(5(1(4(4(1(5(3(4(0(2(0(4(4(2(5(0(x1)))))))))))))))))))))

S is empty.
Rewrite Strategy: FULL
----------------------------------------

(1) DerivationalComplexityToRuntimeComplexityProof (BOTH BOUNDS(ID, ID))
The following rules have been added to S to convert the given derivational complexity problem to a runtime complexity problem:

   encArg(cons_0(x_1)) -> 0(encArg(x_1))
   encArg(cons_4(x_1)) -> 4(encArg(x_1))
   encArg(cons_1(x_1)) -> 1(encArg(x_1))
   encArg(cons_2(x_1)) -> 2(encArg(x_1))
   encArg(cons_3(x_1)) -> 3(encArg(x_1))
   encArg(cons_5(x_1)) -> 5(encArg(x_1))
   encode_0(x_1) -> 0(encArg(x_1))
   encode_1(x_1) -> 1(encArg(x_1))
   encode_2(x_1) -> 2(encArg(x_1))
   encode_3(x_1) -> 3(encArg(x_1))
   encode_4(x_1) -> 4(encArg(x_1))
   encode_5(x_1) -> 5(encArg(x_1))


----------------------------------------

(2)
Obligation:
The Runtime Complexity (full) of the given CpxRelTRS could be proven to be BOUNDS(1, n^1).


The TRS R consists of the following rules:

   0(0(1(2(x1)))) -> 3(1(3(x1)))
   4(2(5(5(x1)))) -> 1(3(0(5(x1))))
   1(5(3(5(2(x1))))) -> 1(2(3(2(4(x1)))))
   2(2(0(2(0(4(x1)))))) -> 2(2(1(1(4(x1)))))
   3(4(0(2(2(0(x1)))))) -> 3(4(4(5(2(x1)))))
   0(3(0(1(2(1(0(x1))))))) -> 3(5(0(2(0(2(x1))))))
   1(2(3(1(2(0(2(x1))))))) -> 1(4(5(0(3(5(x1))))))
   5(4(1(4(5(1(5(x1))))))) -> 5(2(0(2(1(4(5(x1)))))))
   2(0(4(5(5(1(2(2(x1)))))))) -> 2(5(5(4(4(2(2(x1)))))))
   5(3(1(5(2(0(5(0(x1)))))))) -> 5(0(0(0(4(3(1(0(x1))))))))
   0(2(3(2(0(5(1(0(2(x1))))))))) -> 5(1(2(5(5(0(3(4(x1))))))))
   2(1(3(1(1(0(0(2(2(x1))))))))) -> 1(1(3(1(2(4(5(4(x1))))))))

popout

output may be truncated. 'popout' for the full output.

job log

popout

actions all output return to Derivational Complexity: TRS